The MET plays a large role in determining the special education eligibility and placement for students with varying needs. Jonathan is a second-grade child who exhibits academic and behavioral issues. This paper focuses on the participants’ contribution to MET, constructive, collaborative strategies with student families, the importance of background and informal assessments, the need for further information gathering, and recommendations for formal and informal assessment types that include technologies.
The main MET participants are a special education teacher, general educator, school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, OT, and behavioral specialist. Every team member has a unique perspective and expertise (Wright et al., 2021). The special education teacher addresses academic needs and assists in developing IEPs. The general education teacher offers behavior and engagement analysis in the classroom. The function of the school psychologist is to perform psychological assessment with cognitive and emotional aspects; a speech-language pathologist evaluates communication skills, while fine motor skills and gross motor skills evaluations are fulfilled through an occupational therapist. Lastly, the behavior specialist discusses behavior issues, identifies triggers, and outlines a behavior intervention plan.
There is a need for teamwork between these players. In the collaborative teaching model, strategies and accommodations should be aligned by the co-teacher special educator. The school psychologist understands cognitive and emotional factors that affect Jonathan’s behavior because they cooperate with teachers and specialists (Dabić et al., 2021). They collaborate with the teachers to devise communication and motor intervention strategies (Wright et al., 2021). Meaningful collaboration includes regular parent conferences with Jonathan’s parents, who communicate their objections and specify objectives to consider when making sound decisions.
The case study is a very applicable source of valuable contextual and informal assessment data that are critical in guiding the MET process for Jonathan. Notably, as observed by Jonathan, behavior has issues with persistent temper tantrums and aggression directed toward nonpreferred tasks (Wright et al., 2021). Furthermore, the clear cases of limited participation in some activities coupled with specified academic barriers accompanied by difficulties in reading and math highlight that a comprehensive equation is needed to find sources for such obstacles.
Consistently reinforced behavioral problem behaviors, such as defiance and escape at home, provide additional illumination (Wright et al., 2021). These elements provide a broad picture of Jonathan’s battle, not limited to school. It emphasizes the role of MET in examining this correlation between factors, as his home environment contributes to his mostly general state. Therefore, the case study offers a basis for an in-depth and comprehensive evaluation that sheds more light on Jonathan’s complexity, which will necessitate intervention and close collaboration with MET.
While the case study provides a good foundation, additional details can be added to Jonathan’s needs during the MET process. Investigating the medical history of Jonathan becomes meaningful, as it may uncover several sensory processing problems or sleep disorders and attention deficit that might be affecting his struggles (Wright et al., 2021). This medical sphere of reference provides some depth to the analysis, giving insights into questions that exceed an academic and behavioral plane.
Furthermore, an in-depth assessment of social skills may uncover the various layers underlying Jonathan’s interactions with his peers and offer valuable information about the dynamics within his peer group. Understanding how he detects social signals, constructs relationships, and flourishes in peer groups indicates what interventions would best fit his unusual approach to development (Wright et al., 2021). A careful assessment of Jonathan’s faint social behaviors enables the learners to pinpoint core areas where he may struggle and engineer treatments that facilitate positive growth.
Equally significant is an analysis of Jonathan’s community involvement outside the school. The research lends insight into an epic, including any factors or stressors beyond the academic field. It also allows the MET to establish a detailed outline of his interactions in various settings. Identifying external variables that may influence his behavior provides a broader view of Jonathan’s struggle (Dabic et al., 2018). The all-around approach allows the intervention to progress beyond an academically based one and cover a wider scheme of his life, leading to total success in dealing with his specific issues, thereby ensuring improvement in well-being.
The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement should be used for standardized tests. This evaluation analyzes academic performance, which makes clear conversations about reading and mathematics for Jonathan (Wright et al., 2021). Technologies, such as online administration and scoring portals, increase efficiency. Unofficially, the SSRS is encouraged (Wu & Chen 2019). This assessment evaluates social behaviors, providing a more detailed insight into Jonathan’s strengths and weaknesses in social skills. Data integration and analysis are done quickly using digital surveys or apps.
In conclusion, the MET process for Jonathan requires a group approach that will involve an academic and behavioral intervention. There are many participants, including teachers and specialists, who have important roles in the process of gathering and interpreting data. The cooperation with Jonathan’s family ensures that all information regarding his needs and goals can be compiled. A case study, supplemented by supporting data, becomes the basis for purposeful evaluations. The advice suggests formal and non-formal assessments of a technology, which helps add details filtered into eligibility and program decision-making on placement. With a systematic way of doing things and considering all ideas, the MET can contribute significantly to Jonathan’s educational journey by securing a convenient environment.
References
Bayeck, R. Y. (2020). Examining board gameplay and learning: A multidisciplinary review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 51(4), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119901286
Dabić, M., Obradović, T., Vlačić, B., Sahasranamam, S., & Paul, J. (2022). Frugal innovations: A multidisciplinary review & agenda for future research. Journal of Business Research, 142, 914-929.
Taberna, M., Gil Moncayo, F., Jané-Salas, E., Antonio, M., Arribas, L., Vilajosana, E., … & Mesía, R. (2020). The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach and quality of care. Frontiers in oncology, 10, 85. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00085
Wright, C., Goldenberg, I., Schleede, S., McNitt, S., Gosev, I., Elbadawi, A., … & Cameron, S. J. (2021). Effect of a multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team on patient mortality. The American Journal of Cardiology, 161, 102-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.08.066
Wu, Y. J., & Chen, J. C. (2021). Stimulating innovation with an innovative curriculum: a curriculum design for a course on new product development. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100561.
write